3 ms·

> reliable and repeatable results. ...given that the environment is in a predictable state. if the package manager allows for such state to change, and depends

> reliable and repeatable results. ...given that the environment is in a predictable state. if the package manager allows for such state to change, and depends on it, how can one be sure that a package installation/disintallation can be reliable and repeatable?

dredmorbius 8y ago
By making that a requirement of the package maintainer (Debian Developer / DD). Debian's installer doesn't thwart errors, Debian Policy (DPM) does. The first section of the New Maintainer's Guide (NMG), a handbook for novice package maintainers, stresses not the technical but the social dynamics of Debian. https://www.debian.org/intro/about https://www.debian.org/intro/about https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct https://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy https://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy There are a few control points within the hierarchy, supreme of which is less the Debian Project Leader (DPL), but ftp-masters, the (somewhat anachronistically named) group of people who operate the repository download sites (mirrors), and are liable for various forms of legal sanction, varying with local jurisdiction. Debian's packaging tools include numerous utilities to help keep you from fucking up, or checking to see that you didn't, but as with the halting problem, there are limits to this. Debian's governing structures: the Social Contract, Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), Code of Conduct, Constitution, and Policy, all serve not only to stare and accomplish the aims that technology alone cannot, but are an explicit recognition that technology alone is not an appropriate toolkit for all problems. Some Debian packages or tools are maintained by teams (security, base, among others), R seems to be largely or wholly under Dirk Eddelbuettel: https://packages.debian.org/stretch/r-base https://packages.debian.org/stretch/r-base Microsoft appear to be either providing freestanding packages or a third-party repo, which falls outside this framework, though it attempts to use the same package management tools. There are reasons this is dimly viewed by competent sysadmins. https://mran.microsoft.com/download https://mran.microsoft.com/download TL;DR: If a DD maliciously or incompetently violates policy, they've committed a policy violation bug. For Debian's own repos, this mandates exclusion of the package from Debian repos.

dredmorbius 8y ago

By making that a requirement of the package maintainer (Debian Developer / DD). Debian's installer doesn't thwart errors, Debian Policy (DPM) does. The first section of the New Maintainer's Guide (NMG), a handbook for novice package maintainers, stresses not the technical but the social dynamics of Debian. https://www.debian.org/intro/about https://www.debian.org/intro/about https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution https://www.debian.org/devel/constitution https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct https://www.debian.org/code_of_conduct https://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy https://www.debian.org/doc/devel-manuals#policy There are a few control points within the hierarchy, supreme of which is less the Debian Project Leader (DPL), but ftp-masters, the (somewhat anachronistically named) group of people who operate the repository download sites (mirrors), and are liable for various forms of legal sanction, varying with local jurisdiction. Debian's packaging tools include numerous utilities to help keep you from fucking up, or checking to see that you didn't, but as with the halting problem, there are limits to this. Debian's governing structures: the Social Contract, Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), Code of Conduct, Constitution, and Policy, all serve not only to stare and accomplish the aims that technology alone cannot, but are an explicit recognition that technology alone is not an appropriate toolkit for all problems. Some Debian packages or tools are maintained by teams (security, base, among others), R seems to be largely or wholly under Dirk Eddelbuettel: https://packages.debian.org/stretch/r-base https://packages.debian.org/stretch/r-base Microsoft appear to be either providing freestanding packages or a third-party repo, which falls outside this framework, though it attempts to use the same package management tools. There are reasons this is dimly viewed by competent sysadmins. https://mran.microsoft.com/download https://mran.microsoft.com/download TL;DR: If a DD maliciously or incompetently violates policy, they've committed a policy violation bug. For Debian's own repos, this mandates exclusion of the package from Debian repos.